and then explains how the routine halts cannot be defined correctly because it essentially ends up being logically equivalent to "this sentence is false". Aside from the Python-style syntax, this is basically the standard explanation of the halting problem, and I've never understood the concept. Every time I look at that type of example, I think "but why in the world would anyone approach the problem in that way in the first place?"

If I wanted to determine a difficult property of a piece of code, such as answering the question of whether or not it halts, there's no way I would put the analysis inside the code to be analyzed! First off, that leads to contradictions like this example, and second, adding analysis code changes the nature of the thing being analyzed. I would almost certainly go about looking for the answer to the question with external tools, not internal ones.

So yes, I understand that there's no way to write a correct implementation of halts in the example above. But let's restrict ourselves solely to the realm of code that actually can be written correctly, instead of hypotheticals. What's an example of code that can actually be written and executed, for which it is impossible to determine by external analysis whether the code will end up in an infinite loop or whether it will terminate?

There are counting arguments that may be simpler to understand, although they require proofs by contradiction too. -- To get what you want, you'd need a program that is equivalent to solving an independent mathematical problem, such as the continuum hypothesis. But think about it this way: Many open problems in mathematics can be stated as programs that may or may not halt: Showing if it halts or not would be the same as solving a long standing problem in mathematics!
–
MacneilJun 7 '11 at 3:16

4 Answers
4

If I wanted to determine a difficult property of a piece of code, such as answering the question of whether or not it halts, there's no way I would put the analysis inside the code to be analyzed! [...] I would almost certainly go about looking for the answer to the question with external tools, not internal ones.

If Turing's halting problem is really analogous Gödel's incompleteness theorems... then I think what it's really telling you is that you can never solve the problem without going to that external "layer" of meaning or representation.

Thus you cannot make an analyzer that works on itself, you can only make a meta-analyzer, and a meta-meta-analyzer for that, and a meta-meta-meta-analzyer for that, etc. (And you can't make reciprocal analyzers either.)

That is indeed the point. A "simple" Turing complete language cannot decide halting. A "higher-order" logical language is required. And in some cases, the halting proofs are quite subtle.
–
S.LottJun 7 '11 at 0:36

What's an example of code that can actually be written and executed, for which it is impossible to determine by external analysis whether the code will end up in an infinite loop or whether it will terminate?

So yes, I understand that there's no way to write a correct implementation of halts in the example above. But let's restrict ourselves solely to the realm of code that actually can be written correctly, instead of hypotheticals.

This is the essence of the halting problem. There is no way to write the halts function. There is no #some magical code. It cannot exist. The proof of the halting problem is a restriction on the realm of code that can be written.

What's an example of code that can actually be written and executed, for which it is impossible to determine by external analysis whether the code will end up in an infinite loop or whether it will terminate?

This is another important distinction to make. The halting problem says it is not possible to write a program that determines if any program will halt.

It is possible to write a program that determines if a particular program halts.

"It is possible to write a program that determines if a particular program halts" while I agree with the idea, stating it that way is a bit misleading, since there are particular programs for which it is impossible to do.
–
Julien GuertaultJun 7 '11 at 5:47

Every time I look at that type of
example, I think "but why in the world
would anyone approach the problem in
that way in the first place?"

If I wanted to determine a difficult
property of a piece of code, such as
answering the question of whether or
not it halts, there's no way I would
put the analysis inside the code to be
analyzed!

The trick here is that this is a proof by contradiction : assume A, demonstrate it would imply a paradox, conclude assumption was wrong.

So the idea is not that we "would approach the problem in that way" or that we "would put the analysis inside the code to be analyzed". The idea is rather: suppose someone came up with a program and said "Look, I wrote a program that tell if any given program will halt or not". "Oh really? Lemme see what happens if I plug it into itself?" KABOOM!

There's no need to actually take an existing example: this already proves there's no way such a program could exist.

On a side note, it does not mean we cannot try to write such a halts function. It just means it is impossible to write a halts function that will work for any program.

"…it is impossible to write a halts function that will work for any program." In my opinion, that crucially important any is thoroughly under-emphasised in descriptions of the Problem. I'd even go so far as to wager you could write a halts() that works for the majority of programs.
–
Jon PurdyJun 7 '11 at 5:05

1

I wouldn't go that far, but yes, there are branches of code you could definitely write a checking code for. I heard there are softwares doing that, with a "is ok" / "is ko" / "cannot tell" coloring for instance.
–
Julien GuertaultJun 7 '11 at 5:52